18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, through Port Huron, Michigan ....D.In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall ....iii. include the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181

Not surprisingly, I just received a FHWA email confirming NE2's guess:

Quote

This is a proposed Interstate 69 connector for the existing “Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor” that connects at US 181 on the east end and I-37 on the west end at Carbon Plant Road. I-37 then proceeds northwest and connects to US 77 (proposed I-69 E).

This 2007 article reports on the opening of the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor:

Quote

A dream of Port of Corpus Christi commissioners more than 15 years ago will become an achievement Friday when the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor opens to the public .... The 11.8-mile road and rail project has cost the port more than $51 million and adds an alternate route for vehicles and rail lines wanting access to the north side of the Inner Harbor, where 1,000 acres of previously inaccessible land await development.Prior to the corridor, vehicles relied on the Harbor Bridge and the Tule Lake Lift Bridge, which also was used by railcars. Neither gave access to that 1,000 acres .... The corridor runs from U.S. Highway 181 along the north side of the Inner Harbor to Carbon Plant Road, where it connects to Interstate Highway 37.

Here is a map of the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor from the article:

edit

Enjoy the direct connection from I-37 southbound to the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor:

The TxDOT I-69 Driven By Texans website has posted a May 7, 2013 Agenda for the US 59 Scoping Study. A comparison of the direct route vs. the relief routes sets up an interesting choice of lower cost/longer environmental review for the relief routes vs. higher cost/shorter environmental review for the direct US 59 route (page 43/43 of pdf)

Sounds to me like the Upgrade US 59 option would be the most warranted, but with retaining the Dibold bypass.

The TxDOT I-69 Driven By Texans website has posted a August 19 Agenda for the US 59 Scoping Study in which it appears that the two committees have both selected the US 59 upgrade option with "option refinements":

Angelina County (page 21/22 of pdf):

Nacogdoches County (page 22/22 of pdf):

The top priority for the Angelina County Committee is development of the Diboll relief route (page 20/22 of pdf):

Quote

The number one priority of Angelina County Committee members is advancing the development of the Diboll Relief Route. TxDOT completed the environmental process and had approved schematic design plans in 1999 for this project, but because of the elapsed time, an environmental reevaluation will be required. TxDOT is proceeding forward with preparing a reevaluation of the environmental assessment and with ROW mapping updates.

I'm loving how quick the US 59 upgrades seem to be happening north of Houston. I'd love to drive this soon and see what construction might be happening. I drove west across Lufkin on US 69 a few months ago and there were upgrades/realignment on the US 59 loop from US 69 south to the US 59 north exit.

The TxDOT I-69 Driven By Texans website has posted a August 19 Agenda for the US 59 Scoping Study in which it appears that the two committees have both selected the US 59 upgrade option with "option refinements"

The Alliance for I-69 Texas website has posted a map combining the recommendations from the two county committees, as well as a priority list from each county:

Quote

The committees recommended the following priority projects:

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY1. Improvements at the south interchange of US 59 and Loop 224 is the top priority regardless of which route option is carried forward in the environmental process.2. From SH 21 to just north of the US 259/US 59interchange.3. From the Angelina County line to SH 74. From SH 7 to SH 215. From north of US 259 to Appleby

ANGELINA COUNTY1. Diboll relief route2. Upgrade US 59/Loop 287 from US 69 to north of SH 1033. Section from Burke to near Lufkin High School4. Sections of US 59 north of Loop 287 to the Angelina River

Will I-69E in Kenedy County have interchanges being that there are no major crossroads in the entire county? I know that on other Texas interstates they have named interchanges with the two frontage roads with an underpass between the ramps to allow U turns and such, will they do that here?

I noticed that Kenedy County seems more like a private residence as its lack of towns roads and the fact it has a very low population. Most of all its lack of businesses along the current US 77 that is the county's only through route and highway.

Will I-69E in Kenedy County have interchanges being that there are no major crossroads in the entire county? I know that on other Texas interstates they have named interchanges with the two frontage roads with an underpass between the ramps to allow U turns and such, will they do that here?

I noticed that Kenedy County seems more like a private residence as its lack of towns roads and the fact it has a very low population. Most of all its lack of businesses along the current US 77 that is the county's only through route and highway.

I wish I could remember where I saw this (it's probably linked to somewhere upthread). As I remember, the current (unfunded) plans call for an interchange at Sarita and a few others along the length of the county. I also remember the private ranch roads having ramps allowing access to and from only the near side of the freeway. Unless there's a physical barrier, many will probably just make illegal crossings, but the idea is that they'd drive to the nearest interchange and turn around as needed to get to their destinations.

One thing that amazes me about the county is NO GAS. It even states it on signs along US 77 entering the county that there are NO SERVICES for 50 plus miles. You would figure for the benefit of the few that live there that they would at least have one!

It must be awkward for them to have to drive to either Kingsville or Raymondville to gas up and buy groceries. I cannot imagine them either driving to the nearest interchange and make a u turn after years of being able to turn out of your driveway to make a left turn.

To me our federal income taxes are being wasted here as really the current US 77 really does not create that much of an obstacle for free trade truckers as it does have interstate (or at least close to) speed limits and with the limited access it already has the truckers that the corridor is supposed to serve will not really save that much in time to warrant billions of dollars just to upgrade a simple roadway.

Why not let us here in Florida use it on roads that are already crowded or other such cities around the U.S that need the money for better roads, or even better yet get I-49 done in Arkansas including the Bella Vista Bypass.

One thing that amazes me about the county is NO GAS. It even states it on signs along US 77 entering the county that there are NO SERVICES for 50 plus miles. You would figure for the benefit of the few that live there that they would at least have one!

It must be awkward for them to have to drive to either Kingsville or Raymondville to gas up and buy groceries.

There are places in west Texas and in other states with gaps of more than 100 miles between gas stations. Living in such places is as much a lifestyle choice as a geography choice.

Quote

I cannot imagine them either driving to the nearest interchange and make a u turn after years of being able to turn out of your driveway to make a left turn.

To me our federal income taxes are being wasted here as really the current US 77 really does not create that much of an obstacle for free trade truckers as it does have interstate (or at least close to) speed limits and with the limited access it already has the truckers that the corridor is supposed to serve will not really save that much in time to warrant billions of dollars just to upgrade a simple roadway.

Why not let us here in Florida use it on roads that are already crowded or other such cities around the U.S that need the money for better roads, or even better yet get I-49 done in Arkansas including the Bella Vista Bypass.

It does seem wasteful to spend all that money, especially when the ranchers will probably drive over the median anyway. The speed limit there, except through Sarita, is 75, which is as high as it would be after the upgrade. Spending all that money on ramps and overpasses, and then spending more money on cable barriers to prevent illegal turns, and accomplishing nothing but making life a little harder for ranchers, seems silly to me.

A few Interstates have grade crossings due to isolation, light traffic, and the inordinate cost of providing grade separations for so small a benefit. This road could be left as it is, other than one overpass at Sarita. It could be another exception while in no way degrading service, and improved some day when conditions warrant.

Logged

All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

Remember that in Kenedy County this future interstate closely parallels the Union Pacific railroad's Houston-Brownsville main line. (TRAINS magazine has a boatload of maps in this month's issue, including one that shows average trains per day on American main lines. Didn't notice what the traffic is here but I know they run unit grain trains to the Port of Brownsville so those alone will be significant.)

Reason I say this is what happens on the interstate (with ranchers) will likely happen on the rail line.

]I cannot imagine them either driving to the nearest interchange and make a u turn after years of being able to turn out of your driveway to make a left turn.

To me our federal income taxes are being wasted here as really the current US 77 really does not create that much of an obstacle for free trade truckers as it does have interstate (or at least close to) speed limits and with the limited access it already has the truckers that the corridor is supposed to serve will not really save that much in time to warrant billions of dollars just to upgrade a simple roadway.

Why not let us here in Florida use it on roads that are already crowded or other such cities around the U.S that need the money for better roads, or even better yet get I-49 done in Arkansas including the Bella Vista Bypass.

It does seem wasteful to spend all that money, especially when the ranchers will probably drive over the median anyway. The speed limit there, except through Sarita, is 75, which is as high as it would be after the upgrade. Spending all that money on ramps and overpasses, and then spending more money on cable barriers to prevent illegal turns, and accomplishing nothing but making life a little harder for ranchers, seems silly to me.

A few Interstates have grade crossings due to isolation, light traffic, and the inordinate cost of providing grade separations for so small a benefit. This road could be left as it is, other than one overpass at Sarita. It could be another exception while in no way degrading service, and improved some day when conditions warrant.

I disagree...an Interstate designated highway with at-grade crossings (other than I-180) is a disaster waiting to happen. If that is the case, then it would be better to leave it as US 77 and run I-69 along US 59 to Laredo as originally planned.

Actually, if there is that much of a concern about illegal turns, the solution is to provide continuous one-way frontage roads on both sides of US 77, with intermittent grade-seperated "crossunders" to connect them and allow for cross traffic movements. I'd rather that than either the current setup of ramps or allowing at-grade crossings.

]I cannot imagine them either driving to the nearest interchange and make a u turn after years of being able to turn out of your driveway to make a left turn.

To me our federal income taxes are being wasted here as really the current US 77 really does not create that much of an obstacle for free trade truckers as it does have interstate (or at least close to) speed limits and with the limited access it already has the truckers that the corridor is supposed to serve will not really save that much in time to warrant billions of dollars just to upgrade a simple roadway.

Why not let us here in Florida use it on roads that are already crowded or other such cities around the U.S that need the money for better roads, or even better yet get I-49 done in Arkansas including the Bella Vista Bypass.

It does seem wasteful to spend all that money, especially when the ranchers will probably drive over the median anyway. The speed limit there, except through Sarita, is 75, which is as high as it would be after the upgrade. Spending all that money on ramps and overpasses, and then spending more money on cable barriers to prevent illegal turns, and accomplishing nothing but making life a little harder for ranchers, seems silly to me.

A few Interstates have grade crossings due to isolation, light traffic, and the inordinate cost of providing grade separations for so small a benefit. This road could be left as it is, other than one overpass at Sarita. It could be another exception while in no way degrading service, and improved some day when conditions warrant.

I disagree...an Interstate designated highway with at-grade crossings (other than I-180) is a disaster waiting to happen. If that is the case, then it would be better to leave it as US 77 and run I-69 along US 59 to Laredo as originally planned.

Actually, if there is that much of a concern about illegal turns, the solution is to provide continuous one-way frontage roads on both sides of US 77, with intermittent grade-seperated "crossunders" to connect them and allow for cross traffic movements. I'd rather that than either the current setup of ramps or allowing at-grade crossings.

From what I was reading earlier, TxDOT considered doing the frontage road thing, but what they settled on was far less expensive for the needed utility - especially since there are so few separate property owners along the way.

As for services for those ranchers, I suspect that like with even farmers around here, they buy fuel in bulk and dispense it as needed from their own on-site storage tanks. And for all but the most major repairs, they can do those by themselves, too. These guys are pretty self-reliant.

I rode US 77 from Robstown all the way to the Border and there is hardly any traffic that really warrants upgrades at intersections. Plus the speed limit then was the same as the interstates of the time which was 70 Day/ 65 Night and 60 for Trucks. If it is still going to be present 75 after the upgrades, then it's a waste of money. It is freeway where it counts, through the Corpus Christi and Harligen/ Brownsville area and even when completed I am sure that TexDOT is going to leave the one at grade intersection just prior to the Rio Grande just as they are in Laredo with the pair of one way streets that currently create the Breezewood there now as I-69W will most likely tie in north of the City along I-35 and be co-signed with it to the end of the freeway in Downtown Laredo.

Probably I-69C will go to the border directly as the SPUI where US 281 and US 281 Spur interchange will have to be redone as the current flyover there is the wrong way as it favors the E-W part of US 281 with the N-S portion being the signalized road.

Another interesting thing is will the E-W portion of US 281 and US 281 Spur be renumbered as most likely US 281 will be truncated to George West or San Antonio? I doubt TexDOT will have a long concurrency of US and Interstate as the same for US 77 which will most likely be truncated to Victoria once the I-69's take place.

The Texas Transportation Commission has posted an I-69 in South Texas Initiatives Presentation that was presented at its September 26 meeting in McAllen. It provides updates of ongoing I-69C, I-69E, and I-2 projects. One slide that caught my eye included an "I-69 Implementation Plan" based on stakeholder priorities, in particular the planned south-to-north progression for I-69C/US 281 (page 12/12 of pdf):